in defense of Matthew Yglesias and Nicholas Decker.
Stop nagging. Start fighting.
In a recent article, “The troubling rise of Hitler revisionism,” Matthew Yglesias admitted his milquetoast agnosticism:
“I have not looked into [the origin of racial differences], and frankly I don’t intend to, because I am happy living in a society where it is considered unseemly and inappropriate to preoccupy oneself with such questions.”
Matthew is not interested in finding out where the sweet lemonade is made. This is rational and moral. Matt should continue to focus on what he does best, and not try to be an expert in everything. It’s ok to not know things, and it’s ok to admit that you don’t know things. The grand moral crisis of our time isn’t American racial inequality, but global inequality, which is exacerbated by bad Republican policies. I would much rather see a 1% decline in global poverty, war, and disease than a 1% decline in scientific agnosticism about race.
Our priority as Americans should be standing together against Trump and with Matt — not subjecting Matt to a struggle session for failing to perform an anti-racist minstrel show.
witch hunts increase racism.
The argument made by Matt’s critics is that if we are not sufficiently, fanatically, and dogmatically certain that racial differences are 100% environmental as an article of absolute faith, this is eventually going to lead to harm.
First, someone expresses agnosticism.
Then, doubt.
Then, skepticism.
???
Holocaust.
This is an incredibly weak slippery slope argument, for a few reasons:
There is a huge difference between actively promoting harm,1 and agnosticism about the origin of racial differences while expressing anti-racism in personal conduct and political positions.
No one is going to read a scientifically insufficient post by Matt and become “redpilled.” However, millions of Americans become “redpilled on race” every year by mainstream conservatives. Attacking Matt at a time when American democracy is taking a nose-dive is watering the garden while the house is burning down. It is pedantic, small-minded, and selfish. At this crucial moment in our nation’s history, this kind of nitpicking could have deadly and catastrophic consequences for the anti-Trump coalition.
Historically, for the record, infighting among those who were opposed to the Nazis did actually lead to Hitler coming to power. If leftists, liberals, and centrists could have put aside their differences and worked together to crush the Nazis first, the Holocaust would have never happened.
Being puritanical and dogmatic on this issue pushes away reasonable, intelligent, and effective centrist allies like Sam Harris. It hurts our chances of converting anti-Trump Republicans to our side. We should be welcoming to new allies, not hostile and anti-social.
If you insinuate or nag about racism against people who are not racist, you dilute the power of the word, which helps racism grow.
If racism was the only problem in the world, and being more fanatically anti-racist would make it go away, then I would agree that we should cancel people for being agnostic about the “settled science” of environmental determinism. But scientific racism is not the only problem in the world — it’s not even in the top ten.
That doesn’t mean that I want the net racism in the world to increase, and it doesn’t mean I’m not concerned about the rise and Machtergreifung of far right parties. In fact, I am promoting solidarity among all anti-Trump factions because that gives us the best chance to win. Winning has immediate material consequences, while ambiguous agnosticisms have ambiguous future consequences.
There is an opportunity cost to punishing people on your team for their imperfections. We should focus our efforts against the open promotion of policies that result in clear and immediate material harm, not agnosticism. Witching-hunting against agnostic almost-racism produces more racism than it eliminates.2 Critics of Matt are agents of polarization, not the leaders we need to bring our coalition together for landslide victories.
“scientific racism” is a nationalist concern, not a globalist one.
When critics of Matt claim that he is aiding and abetting the rise of “scientific racism” through his agnosticism, they are engaging in conspiratorial hysteria. But even if it were true that there is a slippery slope from scientific agnosticism to normalization of racism, this risk-avoidance of theoretical and potential harm in the future is destructive toward Democratic efforts to stop real harm happening right now.
Right now, Trump is cutting foreign aid. Right now, his personal pride and corruption is preventing a peace process in Ukraine and Gaza. Right now, legal immigrants are rotting in a foreign prison. Right now, the global economy is under threat. These are crises that demand our immediate attention.
We lost in 2024 because of the fringes of our party. If we want to lose again in 2028, the best way to do that is infighting over theoretical, hypothetical slippery slopes.
Let’s say Matt’s comments on race led to a .0001% increase in scientific racism in America, but that overall, his blog will lead to a .001% increase of Democrats winning. And let’s say that purity spiraling over his comments will negate some of his positive impact. Is this worth it?
The only moral framework in which fighting “scientific racism” is a bigger deal than stopping Trump is petty nationalism. The paranoid insecurity of white moralists, signaling to each other how much they care about racism, is a distraction from the war in Ukraine, Gaza, economic downturn, foreign aid, and mass deportations.
I’m not saying that these concerns are mutually exclusive. It is perfectly consistent to oppose scientific racism and oppose Trump. But purity spiraling shrinks of the Democratic coalition needed to win real elections in the real world. Attacking one of the best liberal writers of our time on the grounds that he is not sufficiently scientifically anti-racist is friendly fire.
Imagine that there is a doctor, Dr. Yglesias, who is agnostic about the origins of racial differences. Dr. Yglesias has been doing surgeries all week on Ukrainian, African, and Hispanic patients. Erik Turkheimer finds out about this, and while Dr. Yglesias is in the middle of the operation, he decides that this is the appropriate time to start lecturing Dr. Yglesias on his moral failings, while he is in the middle of surgery. This is annoying, demoralizing, and unproductive.
I’m not saying “don’t criticize racism.” I’m saying criticize real racism, not fake imaginary racism.
putting racism in context.
Blacks in America make half as much as whites — and Asians earn more than whites, and so do Jews. But all of these distinctions in incomes between Americans are close to nothing when put in the context of global inequality. Trump is exacerbating this global inequality with his tariffs, deportations, cuts to foreign aid, and bad foreign policy.
The average American black person earns more than most Europeans. America is a fantastically rich country! If you want to lift billions of underprivileged people out of poverty, you need to stop caring so obsessively about Americans, black and white. Your primary concern should be promoting freedom of movement and freedom of trade, not breathing down the necks of insufficiently dogmatic liberals.
Approximately 22 unarmed black men per year are shot by cops; and twice as many unarmed white people are shot by cops. Policing like a war with civilian casualties: it is impossible to fight crime without mistakes being made and innocent people dying. It also is impossible to prevent psychopaths from becoming cops. And no matter how much DEI training you force white cops to do, many of the black people killed by cops will be killed by… black cops.
Reducing the number of innocent people shot by cops to 0 is impossible and not a reasonable goal. As the marginality of a problem approaches 0, diminishing returns mean that you will end up spending infinite resources to stop it. We should be thinking on the global scale of saving the lives of millions of people, which can be done extremely cheaply!
Imagine if your goal was to stop anyone from ever punching anyone else in the face. A noble goal in itself, but the actual costs of achieving this goal with certainty would be massive. To reduce the possibility of fist-on-face violence, you would have to completely isolate or restrain humans in strait jackets. When you consider the cost of restrictions on freedom, this kind of safetyism is not worth it.
The wokeness Olympics, where whites trip over each other trying to prove who is more anti-racist, leads to defunding the police. Defunding the police increases the number of murdered black people, because it results in an increase in crime. There is a point at which BLM activism hurts black people more than it helps.
how many racist cops are there?
There are 1,280,000 cops in America. Even if only 1% of them were racist, that would be 12,800 racist cops — a huge number! If only 1% of those racist cops were homicidally racist against blacks, that would be 128 homicidally racist cops! And yet, each year, less than 22 unarmed black men are shot by cops.
Furthermore, many of those unarmed black victims are shot accidentally by non-racists, as well as by black cops. And some of those “unarmed” victims were actively in the process of fighting cops with their hands and trying to steal their guns, which adds further ambiguity to the assumption of racist motives. All-in-all, there are, at most, 12 racist white-cop-on-unarmed-black shootings per year. That means, at most, only 0.0009% of cops are homicidal racists.
American law enforcement does an excellent job of screening for homicidal racists, such that 99.999% of cops are not homicidal racists. Eliminating the remaining ~0.001% with millions more in DEI training, when that money could be spent saving lives by making communities safer, is the negligence of opportunity cost. It’s the kind of anecdotal reasoning that justified the Iraq War with the tragedy of 9/11. Just because George Floyd’s face was plastered on TV for millions of hours doesn’t mean that his life was worth any more than someone living in Africa. The idea that his death “meant more” than anyone else’s is petty nationalism, pure and simple.
If someone is openly espousing homicidal racism, they should be opposed. Race realism is dangerous, not just because it could potentially result in racially motivated violence, but because it decreases our openness and harms our liberal institutions. But Matt isn’t advocating for homicidal racism. He’s merely stating his agnosticism about a scientific question.
Hyper-obsessing over the hermeneutics of racist suspicion is not a reasonable way to alleviate human suffering. It’s counter-productive infighting that helps Trump divide and conquer our country.
What is a reasonable way to alleviate human suffering is trying to solve global hunger. 9 million people die of hunger per year. Those deaths are not accidental or inevitable. By increasing freedom of trade (decreasing the relative cost of food) and increasing freedom of movement (increasing wealth and decreasing the global birth rate), it is possible to make massive gains against world hunger within our lifetimes.
But there is someone who, at this very moment, is decreasing both global trade and global freedom of movement. That man’s name is Donald Trump.
Let’s say that by canceling every liberal who has said something racially insensitive you could prevent the deaths of 12 black people per year due to police racism. But, on the other hand, you would divide the anti-Trump movement, and Vance would win in 2028, leading to the deaths of millions of people overseas from AIDS, disease, starvation, and war. Is it moral to passive aggressively scold Matt Yglesias?
Imagine if the critics of Matt were as obsessed with defeating Trump as they are with thought policing agnostics on the nature-vs-nurture debate!
in defense of agnosticism:
Matt notes that people who are obsessed with these differences on the left tend to support “dogmatic accounts of disparate impact à la Kendi,” which “are dangerous and bad.” This results in riots and defunding the police, which hurts black people and provides no benefit. When white people are exposed to the DEI training advocated for by Kendi, they actually become more racist, which is bad.
But Yglesias also opposes those who are obsessed with racial differences on the right, who question the Holocaust and minimize the evil of Hitler.
Matthew’s declaration of agnosticism reminds me of Glenn’s essay, “I Don’t Care If There’s a God or Not.” Imagine that in response to Glenn, I wrote a highly patronizing article in which I insinuate that he is a bad person for not dedicating his life to the study of theology and being an agnostic. Do you think this would do any good in converting Glenn or any of his readers? What would be the purpose, besides feeling good about myself and maybe receiving applause from the choir?
Science and Karl Popper
Karl Popper wrote the following regarding pseudoscience:
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred...
Whatever happened always confirmed it… Unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment…
Popper lays out seven “essential conclusions” about science, and conclusion four is relevant here:
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
With this in mind, consider Erik Turkheimer’s scathing review of the agnostic position.3
environmental determinism is not gravity.
Is there any way to refute Turkheimer’s environmentalist thesis? No! Because any time you present any evidence of genetic factors, he will simply call them “complicated” and “inconclusive,” since you can never eliminate environmental contamination.
He claims:
There is no good evidence [for the genetic hypothesis], nothing that deserves our serious attention.
Since we cannot control for environment, speculation about genetic causes is pointless.
Genetic differences in cognitive ability are less likely than genetic differences in spelling ability [???]
In reference to the genetics of sprinting ability, he describes “significant genetic associations, but nothing definitive.” I repeat: he is claiming that agnosticism is unreasonable because genetic associations are “significant but not definitive.”
This sentence is especially torturous: “The same is true of the fast-twitch muscle fiber physiology you hear about: there are some interesting findings, but nothing that is any more likely to explain differences than simply observing that people in the DR place a lot of emphasis on baseball.” In other words, there are multiple competing hypotheses.
That’s not an argument against agnosticism. That’s an argument in favor of agnosticism.
Of course, you could take the same arguments I make here against Turkheimer and turn them against over-confident hereditarians. That’s my point! To be a dogmatic hereditarian, or to deny the possibility of any genetic influence, are both dogmatic and pseudoscientific positions. The most scientific position is agnosticism, not moralistic certainty.
Turkheimer asks this leading question:
Are you… ready to believe that Indian-Americans have some special genetic ability for spelling in English?
This is a disingenuous question, because it implies that someone is proposing some singular “special ability” or a “spelling gene” which is unique to spelling in order for spelling ability to be influenced by genetics.
Spelling ability is a composite trait which is influenced by multiple underlying traits. For example, conscientiousness might impact one’s ability to study for a spelling bee. Or verbal intelligence. Or working memory. So yes, I am prepared to accept that there is genetic variation which influences all of these traits, if I see evidence for it. And in the absence of that evidence, I remain agnostic, rather than moralistically certain that it is impossible, irrational, absurd, or evil for spelling ability to be genetically influenced.
Do gravitons exist? Is there life on other planets? We don’t know! To say that “since we don’t have solid evidence of these things, we should have certainty that they don’t exist” is not scientific.
If the year was 1491, Turkheimer would be the kind of guy to claim that “there’s no point to speculation about undiscovered continents, since there is no evidence for undiscovered continents. Discovering new continents would be impossible, since it would require crossing vast oceans, which we cannot do without our current technology.” But Yglesias isn’t wildly speculating about anything! He is agnostic.
In the year 1491, it was appropriate to be agnostic about the existence of undiscovered continents. To be dogmatically opposed to any speculation about undiscovered continents, since they would “de-center Jerusalem as the center of the world, which violates church doctrine and is sinful,” would not be scientific.
Turkheimer writes that “speculation about genetic causes is pointless” since it isn’t possible to control for environmental effects. Even if that were true, Matt’s agnosticism is scientifically sound. The inability to test a hypothesis at present does not give us certainty that there exist no genes which influence intelligence. The impossibility of proving hereditarianism isn’t an argument against agnosticism. In fact, the complexity of the issue only lends credence to the case that agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position.
Turkheimer declares that “there is no good evidence [for genetic influence], nothing that deserves our serious attention.” Even if that were true, the absence of evidence in favor of a genetic explanation of racial differences should only permit us to take an agnostic position on this question. Unless and until we complete understand every gene, its variation throughout all populations, and its exact effect, we cannot and should not declare certainty.
More Turkheimer contradictions.
Turkheimer is correct that environment plays a greater role in racial differences than genetics. If someone confidently declares the opposite, that is pseudoscience. But when he says that there is no evidence for a genetic role in racial differences, that is untrue. The evidence might be weaker than previously supposed, but the evidence is not 0.
Here’s a quote from Turkheimer’s own book:
“GWAS has turned the tables on the heritability of intelligence, from the 80 percent presumed by Jensen to something closer to 20 percent now.”
20% isn’t 0%!
And here’s Turkheimer from a paper in 2016:
I am more skeptical than most of my colleagues about the reductive power of genetics to explain such things, but I recognize that the scientific jury is still out. In the meantime, all I ask is that inevitable findings of weak genetic influence not be accepted as strong genetic explanations of complex human behavior while we wait for the progress of science to take its inevitable course.
Turkheimer is admitting two things:
His views do not reflect the majority opinion among behavioral geneticists.
Behavioral genetics is poorly understood, and anyone who calls any aspect of it “settled science” where we can confidently assert generalizations with certainty is premature.
There are some things that we can say with certainty in behavior genetics. For example: “intelligence is polygenic.” That’s simple enough. But it is not scientific to say that “population-level variance in intelligence is 0% heritable, and there is no possibility of any evidence to the contrary coming out in the future, and if you express any agnosticism about that then you are fomenting stereotyping and bigotry.”
There are two reasons why this is not scientific:
Proposing that future evidence will not arise is to suppose that we thoroughly understand the population variance of every single gene and we know exactly how each one impacts intelligence. This is not true, and anyone who tells you confidently that this is true is lying, because we haven’t done that, nor are we anywhere close to this. Not even 1% of the way there. But the idea that we will never be there is also unfounded. We have to wait and see! QED, agnosticism.
It isn’t scientific to claim that a hypothesis will lead to stereotyping and bigotry. It may be correct morally, politically, or sociologically, but it isn’t a scientific statement.
Turkheimer helps Trump.
Turkheimer has the right to mix science with politics and morality. He has the right to say, “I believe this, and if you don’t, you are evil.” But my moral counter-argument is this:
We should be focusing on stopping Donald Trump. Nit-picking, admonishing, insinuating, and nagging important members of the Democratic coalition, like Ygelsias and Sam Harris, is enervating. It weakens, demoralizes, and saps the energy of the coalition. It is not cool or fun.
This is what old people do with their time: they wag their finger at younger people, and give them lectures. This is their surrogate activity and power process when they have lost the life force to make positive changes in the world. It is parasitic, and can only criticize, never create.
It’s fine to say that we don’t need open racists or raving antisemites in the Democratic Party. But the purity spiraling against mere agnosticism is not helping. In fact, when anti-racists make poor arguments, it prejudices audiences against their position.4
why address Turkheimer?
Turkheimer isn’t very popular; apparently, he’s complaining that no one is bothering to review his book, so he’s not very relevant. Why bother addressing him?
Turkheimer is emblematic of the reason why we lost in 2024. Fringe, smug bullies with inverted priorities and too much time on their hands forced purity spiraling shibboleths down our throats, and alienated the independent and moderate members of our coalition. Remember when Julian Castro said that trans-women have the right to get abortions? Remember when Kamala Harris promised transgender surgery for undocumented minors? Remember when Black Lives Matter stole the mic from Bernie, screamed at him, and humiliated him?
Why did Castro and Harris, career politicians, say those ridiculous things? Because for a long time, if you were a moderate in the Democratic Party, and some fringe radical extremist said something bizarre and outrageous, you sat down, shut up, listened, and nodded your head. “We can’t offend the base,” they said.
This is why Trump won.
It’s time for the moderates in the party to fight back. We aren’t here for shibboleths or social-status signaling points. We are here to make a real difference in the real world. We are here to save the economy, save lives, and save the world.
We are here to win.
Turkheimer can take his arrogant, moralistic, pseudo-scientific nagging and go vote for Jill Stein.
Erik is doing his best to create division within the Democratic coalition and undermine agnostics for not having sufficiently “pure” thoughts. Meanwhile, African children are being sold in slave markets in Libya. If we had a Democratic president, we could be doing something about that. Turkheimer’s moral posturing is performative, annoying, unscientific, and unhelpful. It is not the spirit we need for 2026.
If we don’t need people dragging us down and shrinking our coalition, what do we need? What is the positive, forceful, energetic spirit that will lead us to victory?
I stan Nicholas Decker
In the short time that I have been writing on Substack, I have received and been witness to an onslaught of racist abuse. On a daily basis, I witness right-wing lunatics advocate openly for genocide against black people.
Sometimes they claim that African lives have no value. Other times, they actively advocate for the sadistic torture of blacks as a form of revenge “against wokeness.” I cannot count the number of times I have had a right-winger tell me that “we should just let the Africans starve to death.”
But Nicholas Decker writes one little essay about resisting tyranny, and everyone loses their minds:
On Thursday evening, the official George Mason University X account tweeted it was “aware” of Decker’s article, condemned it, and noted campus police referred the matter to “state and federal law enforcement for evaluation of criminal behavior.”
Nicholas had the Secret Service show up to his house. He was not charged with a crime; they were sent to intimidate him.
Dear George Mason University: I am honored to count Nicholas Decker as one of the subscribers to DeepLeftAnalysis. The Deep Left stands in solidarity with Nicholas, and I am a paid subscriber to Homo Economicus.5 When the Deep Left seizes power, we will be bringing back free speech to college campuses, not threatening students with acts of intimidation. We will bring back the true “Mason way.”
Let me be clear: Donald Trump’s regime is killing people. He is threatening crucial foreign aid, increasing the risk of war, starvation, and disease. He is killing Ukrainians (and Russians) by refusing to force Putin to the negotiating table. He is closing borders and risking a global recession with chaotic tariffs.
We have the right to do a little edgy Thomas Jefferson posting.
but isn’t Nicholas too extreme?
There’s an argument to be made that Nick’s comments were “extremist,” and therefore hurt the liberal case against Trump. His comments could be perceived as scary, frightening, aggressive, or threatening. Liberals should do their utmost to be perceived as pacifistic, non-threatening, effeminate, and weak. We should let Trump supporters threaten us with mass deportations, and just take it. We should never draw red lines and push back.
Or maybe not.
Maybe we need some big twink energy to energize liberals to defeat Republicans. Maybe liberals need to grow a spine and gain some courage. Maybe Nicholas went too far — but maybe we should be forgiving, supportive, conciliatory, and give him some slack. Let him cook.
Seriously — think to yourself, what are the reasons why young people aren’t on board with liberalism? Is it because we are too scary, aggressive, violent, brash, bold, brave, and radical? Or is it because we are limp-wristed, lame, boring, naggy, school-marmy, timid, cowardly, and risk-avoidant?
Clearly, there is a problem in the Democratic Party — we just lost the most consequential election in 93 years. Fedposting is not that problem. Nicholas may have over-corrected, but you know, sometimes it’s ok to over-correct. Sometimes you need to over-correct, and then you find the right balance. What’s important is that he’s got the spirit. We need risk takers. We need the spirit.
conclusion.
To wrap it all up and bring it home:
Erik’s attacks on Matthew Yglesias as a promoter of “bigotry,” at this crucial moment in history, is effectively a form of support for Donald Trump.
Erik Turkheimer is not brave. He knows no one is going to punish him for promoting the narcissism of small differences. He can feel “purer” than everyone else, and feel morally superior. But he is an agent of division.
Erik Turkheimer likes to attack people who are younger, bolder, more creative, edgier, and popular than himself. He likes to drag them down and finger wag. He is not a fighter. He is an ankle biter.
Don’t be like Erik. Be brave. Be bold. Be like Nick.
Like the 18% of Americans who support arresting undocumented children at school.
Just read Turkheimer’s comments section. He is not winning hearts and minds.
For fun, imagine Matt had stated something like this about evolution:
“I have not looked into the theory of evolution, and frankly I don’t intend to, because I am happy living in a society where it is considered unseemly and inappropriate to preoccupy oneself with such questions.”
Then, imagine if Erik Turkheimer’s response was as follows:
“I am not going to provide you with a clear explanation for why evolution is impossible. However, the question is complicated. Therefore, evolution is a lousy explanation for the origin of species.
People often assume that there are strong proofs against creationism, but in fact there are not.
The published works of Darwin turn up the same kind of thing as most biological research: some significant challenges to creationism, but nothing definitive, nothing that would allow you to doubt church doctrine.
The same is true of the “vestigial structure” argument you hear about: there are some interesting findings, but nothing that is any more likely to explain the origins of species than simply observing that biology is very complicated, and God works in mysterious ways.
I have a rule: all discussions of evolution are really about communism.
If we accept that it is obvious that the diversity of species is somehow the result of evolution, then it opens the door to having a similar discussion about the dictatorship of the proletariat. This, I think, is the ultimate reason why Yglesias is uncomfortable with the topic, and I agree that he should be.
But the Darwinian hypothesis is even more implausible than the continental drift or plate tectonics, for an obvious reason: there is massive evidence of miracles that compete with an evolutionist hypothesis. It isn’t especially easy to specify exactly how the Virgin Mary might appear to crowds of people, but only bad-faith blasphemers can deny the history of Bolshevism around the world, beginning with Marxism 200 years ago and proceeding through Stalinism, Maoism, and all of the reverberating cross-generational effects in the modern world. It is not possible to ignore Marian apparitions, so speculation about evolution is pointless.
I don’t mean to be too tough on Yglesias here. He is just trying to be reasonable about a very complex subject, and he doesn’t explicitly blaspheme Jesus, although I think it is implicit in his concerns. There are many more or less well-intended heterodox-type thinkers, from Voltaire to Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to Edward Gibbon, who try to establish their heterodox, pro-science, academic freedom bona fides by giving a fair shake to evolutionary explanations of the origin of species.
My point is that this is a very poor platform for the effort. In part, Yglesias is right, it is a poor platform because the hypotheses can lead so easily to blasphemy and heresy, but the more important reason is that the alleged science sucks. There is no good evidence, nothing that deserves our serious attention. It is easy to think that everything is a culture war issue nowadays, but this one isn’t.
This whole business is the topic of Chapter 9 of my book [Amazon link], by the way. I have been disappointed that this chapter has not received a single word of comment, from either the left or right.
Please, go read Turkheimer’s essay, and tell me this is not an accurate parody of his writing style. I find it insufferable.
Again, Turkheimer’s comments section. No conversions here.
If anyone would like a free paid subscription to Homo Economicus, post in the comments below, I have 5 to give away!
Spot on
Having naughty views on racial differences is not inherently genocidal. Most of those who fought to end slavery in this country -- including Abraham Lincoln -- had views on racial differences which would be considered double plus deplorable today.